Moral cooperation is the idea that in many instances, it is optimal for different moral views to cooperate and search for a compromise, rather than treat actions as zero sum.
Take the following example, involving two groups with opposing moral views: Deep Ecologists, and Animal Welfarists. Deep Ecologists hold that nature as it currently exists should be maintained and sustained into the future, while Animal Welfarists believe that animal suffering is morally problematic, and this includes suffering that occurs in the wild. Let’s assume that each group has a 50/50 chance of shaping the trajectory of the long-run future. Deep Ecologists will choose to maintain the current natural order (which they value at 1, and Animal Welfarists value at 0), and Animal Welfarists would radically change the natural order (Deep Ecologist: 0, Animal Welfarists: 1). Since they each have a 50/50 shot of shaping the long-run future, they each value the current state of affairs at 0.5. Instead of competing, they could cooperate to bring about a future which they both value at 0.9 (say one where a lot of natural systems are still in place, but the most egregious features of suffering are eliminated). This is a better outcome in expectation for both of these moral views, even though they have strongly opposing moral beliefs.
Tomasik, Brian. 2015. Gains from trade through compromise.